The gaps in legislation made in the formulation of rules on hostage taking (article 206) and kidnapping (article 126): problems of law enforcement


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

As you know, the current criminal Code of the Russian Federation contains an exhaustive list of rules for which the legislator provides for criminal liability. A certain similarity in the design of the elements of different constituents often leads to conflict and competition of individual articles and their provisions in the doctrine of criminal law and practice of application. Recently, there has been a tendency to expand the norms of the Special part of the criminal code of the Russian Federation, which exacerbate this problem. An increase in the number of rules does not always mean their effectiveness, and there is no gap in the current criminal code of the Russian Federation. The article deals with actual problems contained in the legislative structure of the norms providing for criminal liability for hostage-taking and kidnapping. Purpose of the article: This work aims to study the problem of qualification of crimes on the basis of elements of crime, violation of the principle of justice and insufficient individualization of criminal responsibility hostage-taking and kidnapping. The authors aim to demonstrate and specify the existing gaps in the current legislation. Methodology and methods: the article uses a comparative legal research method, as well as a method of interpretation of legal norms, which allow us to better understand the institutions of criminal law and determine the main directions of their development. Conclusions: the problem of imperfections in the current legislation is relevant to study, as evidenced by the judicial practice in criminal cases, discussions and works of legal scholars. The doctrine also notes the need to observe the principle of justice in order to achieve the goals of the criminal law. Problems in the construction of these norms lead to the problem of misqualification of the investigated crimes, and the problem of differentiation of these norms. Application of the results: this article may be of interest to students of higher educational institutions: bachelors, undergraduates, postgraduates who study this area of criminal law, but also this material may be of interest to teachers of law schools, can be used as a guide for the preparation of practical and seminar classes

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Zan Wang

Dalian Maritime University

Email: wangzan9@dlmu.edu.cn
Dr of Law, Associate Professor. Dalian, China

Anna Valerievna Serebrennikova

Moscow state University named after M. V. Lomonosov

Email: serebranna@hotmail.com
Dr of Law, Professor. Moscow, Russia

Maksim Vladimirovich Lebedev

Gubkin Russian State University of Oil and Gas (National Research University)

Email: 3g4g@mail.ru
Position: Analyst. Moscow, Russia

References

  1. Бриллиантов А.В. Похищение человека или захват заложника. - Российская Юстиция. 1999.- № 9. с.45
  2. Лебедев М.В. Проблемы квалификации преступлений по признаку субъективной стороны (на примере отдельных преступлений против жизни). в журнале Пробелы в российском законодательстве, № 7, 2016 с. 175
  3. Петров П.К. Похищение человека и захват заложников- вопросы квалификации/ Вестник Южно-уральского государственного университета. Серия: Право 2008г. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/pohischenie-cheloveka-i-zahvat-zalozhnika-voprosy-kvalifikatsii (дата обращения к электронному ресурсу 01.08.2019г.)
  4. Рарог А.И., Пробелы в уголовном законодательстве России. Текст научной статьи по специальности «Право», Пробелы в Российском законодательстве. Юридический журнал. М., №1, 2008 с.194-197
  5. Серебренникова А. В., Лебедев М. В. Уголовная ответственность за организацию незаконного вооруженного формирования и участие в нем //Пробелы в российском законодательстве. - 2018. - № 3. - С. 285-289.
  6. Апелляционное определение ВС РФ №67-АПУ14-36 от 08.10.2014г., https://www.zakonrf.info/suddoc/ 898bfad41c59c90891299ab6e4e4134e/ (дата обращения к электронному ресурсу 10.07.2019г.).
  7. Приговор Пригородного районного суда Республики Северная Осетия-Алания№1-3/18, http://sudact.ru/ regular/doc/TMy8Tie6whNB/?regulartxt=%D0% B7%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA®ular- (дата обр. к эл. ресурсу 22.07.19г.).
  8. Приговор Верховного суда Чеченской республики №б/н от 19.11.2014г., http://sudact.ru/regular/doc/Bng6h-PFkj6g3/ (дата обр. к эл. ресурсу 16.07.2019г.).
  9. Приговор Клинцовского районного суда, Брянской области, №1-7/2015 от 25.03.2015г., http://sudact.ru/ regular/doc/jA7YtkxLJTQJ/?page= 12& regulardoc_ type= (дата обращения к электронному ресурсу 28.12.2018г).
  10. Решение Московского областного суда по делу № 2-9/2010 от 02.08.2010г., https://actysudov.ru/act? name=reshenie-po-delu-29-2010-265-2009-&court= (дата обращения к электронному ресурсу 20.07.2019г.).

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies